In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is therefore sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The above argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that mere the government’s allocation for cleaning up mason river and increasing riverside recreational facilities would increase the number of water sports user, rendering it’s main conclusion, the city government should allocate more money in this year’s budget for riverside recreational facilities, invalid.
The argument fails to provide any justification that the survey result would truly reflect in practical life. For one, the survey might be fail to account for the acyual behavior of people. Usually, the survey is conducted on random basis and this does not always tell the actual preference of mass people. The choice of some people might not be the choice of all people always. In addition, the survey result might be also biased. The survey showed that the people of Mason City ranked water activities as one of their favorite activities. Had the argument provided information regarding the kind of such activities, even then the argument would have to further prove that they would perform these activities in Mason, not other places.
The argument also leaves many other unwarranted questions. Even if the people of Mason city would play the water sports in their own city, the argument does not provide any information whether the instruments for playing recreational activities already existed or need to build newly. If all the staffs needed for playing sports in the water already exists, the new allocation from this year would be unnecessary and it would result in the misuse of public money. As the taxes are the main source of city council’s fund, so it is the first and foremost responsibility of the city council to make sure the best of this fund.
Finally, the argument does not mention the sources of fund for providing money for building riverside recreational facilities. Is this money would be arranged by cutting down the budget for other development projects? If this happened then it is not expected as there might have other important projects which need to complete on priority basis and if fund for building recreational activities managed by discarding these money from these projects, then the people would have a negative impression about the city council.
Because, the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that the city council should approved more funds in the current budget for building riverside entertainment activities.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jason123 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-26 | jason123 | 59 | view |
| 2020-01-20 | Ammu helen | 16 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | ramji90 | 82 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | shekhawat24 | 49 | view |
- Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying 50
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes littl 55
- The consumption of three spread between 1981 and 2007 67
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Overall the widespread use of the internet has a mostly positive effect on life in today s world 70
- Many offenders commit more crimes after serving the first punishment Why is this happening and what measures can be taken to tackle this problem 67
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 405 350
No. of Characters: 2088 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.486 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.156 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.666 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.824 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.116 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 417, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this money' or 'these moneys', 'these monies'?
Suggestion: this money; these moneys; these monies
...tional activities managed by discarding these money from these projects, then the people wo...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 217, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing riverside entertainment activities.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, if, regarding, so, then, in addition, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2156.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32345679012 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82264883418 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.476543209877 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 670.5 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 91.2582176231 57.8364921388 158% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.823529412 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8235294118 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82352941176 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229209762824 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0819757833324 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0851641153863 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138265284308 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0351045446428 0.0628817314937 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.